Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease

Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.

To find out the username of the admin who protected the page click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page" which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected please use the section below.

Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

Requests for page protection
Click here to return to Requests for page protection. Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level Request unprotection

Sinéad O'Connor

Sinéad O'Connor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Protected in accordance with WP:BLP over a decade ago. However, this person is deceased. Does BLP policy still has to apply to this page?197.2.30.146 (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on if there are any lingering controversies, per WP:BDP. BLP protections extend to anywhere from six months to two years postmortem. I'd argue that this may be a case where unprotection could be tried. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Courcelles: as the protecting admin. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure he would respond given his last activity was 3 months ago.197.2.30.146 (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: In this case, it seems like Casliber should probably be considered the protecting administrator. It looks like Courcelles was restoring Casliber's semi-protection after the pending changes trial ended. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And he hasn't edited in a couple of weeks, either. Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncomfortable declaring them to be "inactive" at this point since some people go on vacations that are several weeks long. Could we give them several days to respond to the ping here? Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The protection template has changed several times over the course of the article's history, but it was protected due to vandalism, not under WP:BLP. Also, we don't lift protections made due to WP:BLP or under WP:CT/BLP automatically some period of time after a person dies. Protections are lifted following WP:UNPROTPOL. As Casliber who originally applied the protection is still active, they should be asked first. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The protection log on that page doesn't say anything about BLP, it is protected due to excessive vandalism. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was before CTOPS existed. Any long-term BLP protections still active are, it seems we have been doing, treated as CTOPS actions now. Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Any long-term BLP protections still active are, it seems we have been doing, treated as CTOPS actions now. Could you please clarify what policy or guideline says that? WP:PP independently allows indefinite protection of articles experiencing heavy and persistent WP:BLP violations. We should try to stick to established interpretations of policies. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that we don't have to choose CTOPS protection for a BLP, even when we make it indefinite. But the longer the term, the previous terms, and the more times it's previously been protected, the more admins aware of CTOPS are choosing to invoke that even if the main issue is persistent vandalism.

Of course, since we're now in BRDP territory with this article, as noted above, this discussion is really beside the point. Daniel Case (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow the point you are trying to make, but I'm inclined to unprotect the article given the lack of disruption and WP:PP allows that once we've given Casliber the chance to respond. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]